“Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the country through the process known as “chain migration” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an UNLIMITED relatives to the U.S. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on track to import 15 million new foreign-born voters. Between 7 and 8 million of those foreign-born will arrive in the U.S. through chain migration.” JOHN BINDER

By Clodomiro Puentes
16 December 2016

As the initial shock of the US election results
begins to wear off, Mexican ruling circles are beginning to grope towards a
response to the political and economic implications of an incoming Trump
administration.

Dissatisfaction with perceived mismanagement of
Mexico’s position relative to Washington by the government of President Enrique
Peña Nieto is increasingly articulated not only by the overwhelming majority of
the population, but by sections of the ruling class and its political
representatives as well.

Dissension within ruling circles has been fueled
by Mexico’s underperforming economy, which has consistently fallen short of
projected growth rates for four years, as its currency has gone down in value
from about 13 pesos to the dollar at the beginning of the EPN administration,
to nearly 21 pesos in the wake of the election of Donald Trump.

There are growing demands for policies designed
to hedge against president-elect Trump’s promises to renegotiate or even scrap
NAFTA, deport millions of undocumented immigrants and impose tariff walls on
Mexican and Chinese goods. This was reflected in a move towards deepening trade
ties with China in a meeting between officials of the two countries on Sunday,
and in the auctioning off of two deep water oil blocks to the China Offshore
Oil Corporation last week as part of the privatization of Mexico’s state-owned
oil firm Pemex.

The APEC summit held in Lima in November was
notable in that China all but assumed the leading role, and in particular
affirmed its commitments to its trading partners in Latin America. Speaking at
the summit, Peña Nieto expressed the Mexican ruling class’ desire to press
forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which now remains dead in the
water as far as participation by the US is concerned. He also insisted on the
need to “modernize rather than renegotiate” NAFTA and voiced Mexico’s
willingness to “further strengthen this strategic alliance.”

Mexico’s ruling elite and its representatives
have grown increasingly impatient over what is seen as an overly reactive,
conciliatory and cautious response by the PRI government to the US
president-elect.

An editorial inEl
Financierostates:
“The Mexican government can’t remain with its arms crossed. Will there be a
prompt, realistic, nationalist response? Up to now, it doesn’t seem so. A
certain degree of prudence is understandable, but Mexico must also be prudently
bold and prepare in the next four weeks a raft of urgent measures to face the
diverse scenarios emerging from the US.”

In remarks made to the newspaperReformaearlier this month, Miguel Barbosa,
head of the pseudo-left PRD’s (Party of the Democratic Revolution)
parliamentary group, lambasted the Peña Nieto government as “stunned, fearful,
incapable of responding, with weak people responsible for foreign affairs and
trade when Mexico needs to present a firm, dignified, patriotic stance and act
intelligently.” Continuing, he added that “each action by Donald Trump that is
not met with necessary forcefulness make this government look weak and will end
up undermining it.”

Giving voice to a growing interest among ruling
circles in lessening Mexican dependence on the US by broadening its trade
relations in the Asia-Pacific region, and China in particular, Barbosa called
for the opening up of trade talks with China “in a direct manner.”

Last Sunday, that is precisely what was
initiated in a meeting between State Councillor Yang Jiechi and Foreign
Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu. According to Reuters, “Yang said in the meeting
that China’s comprehensive partnership with Mexico was ‘flourishing’ day by
day, adding that China wishes to deepen cooperation on trade, investment,
resources, infrastructure and financial services.” No details were given on
what was discussed during Yang’s “courtesy visit” with the Mexican president
shortly afterwards.

“The China-Mexico relationship is back on
again,” said Evan Ellis, a research professor at the US Army War College who
specializes in China’s presence in Latin America. “The election of President
Trump and the associated threat to NAFTA probably was one driver for (Peña
Nieto) to position Mexico to diversify its foreign economic engagements,” Ellis
told the Reuters news agency.

The visit with Mexican state officials follows a
previous meeting between Yang and retired Army general Michael Flynn, the
arch-militarist Trump pick for national security adviser. The visit was clearly
motivated in part by Trump’s calculated and provocative violation of the “One
China Policy,” a cornerstone US-China diplomatic protocol, by setting up a
phone call with the president of Taiwan.

China is Mexico’s second largest trading
partner, accounting for over 16 percent of Mexico’s imports in 2014, as
compared to 49 percent for the US in the same year. Unlike with the US, it
remains a decidedly one-sided relationship, with a $60 billion deficit in
China’s favor. Nevertheless, the possibility of a protectionist US trade policy
under a Trump administration may end up working in Beijing’s favor as it seeks
to gain a greater economic foothold in the region.

The recent awarding of two oil blocks that CNOOC
(China National Offshore Oil Corporation) had won in the bidding process,
points to the continuation of such a trend. The auction, the consummation of
the reactionary “energy reform,” was for 10 oil blocks in total, eight of which
were sold, exceeding official expectations. Among other winners of the bidding
process were US energy firms Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and Murphy Oil.

It is far from the case that Mexico’s ruling
class is either willing or able to prepare a sudden and irrevocable shift away
from Washington toward Beijing. Given the closely integrated character of
production, supply and distribution across North America, Mexico’s ruling elite
can ill afford, for the time being, to precipitously disengage economically or
politically from its northern neighbor.

Moreover, for Washington’s part, the
protectionist demagogy of Trump’s campaign rhetoric will butt up against the
demands of maintaining at all costs US imperialist geopolitical domination
throughout the Americas, the US’ “backyard.” Far from providing an economic
lifeline in a volatile economic climate, Mexico’s overtures to China will only
aggravate political tensions as the architects and planners of US imperialist
policy move to check the expansion of China’s economic presence in Latin
America.

The recent appointment of retired Marine Corps
Gen. John Kelly as head of the Department of Homeland Security, apart from
being yet one more general in a cabinet of billionaires and generals, is
significant in this regard.

Under the Obama administration, as head of the
United States Southern Command, which oversees the operations of US imperialism
in Central and South America and the Caribbean, Kelly was a strong proponent of
an escalation of US militarism in the hemisphere.

His claim that the “near-broken societies” of
the Northern Triangle posed an “existential” threat to US “national security,”
aside from its patent absurdity, is made all the more repugnant by the
deliberate omission of the role of US imperialism in engendering the bloody
civil wars and subsequent epidemics of gang violence that plague the region in
the first instance.

Much of SOUTHCOM’s energies are ostensibly
devoted to the so-called “war on drugs” and “humanitarian relief,” which
includes extensive joint operations with the DEA, FBI, CIA and their
counterparts in the region. Of course, “humanitarian relief” has invariably
proven to be a euphemism for the imposition of martial law when natural
disasters strike impoverished countries in the region.

Thus, shorn of its “humanitarian” trappings, a
2010 SOUTHCOM press release inadvertently gives the game away in one example
among many when describing a joint training exercise between US and Colombian
Marines: “U.S. Marines geared up with riot shields, shin guards and batons to
show Colombian Marines the basics in non-lethal weapons and riot control. These
skills are essential when dealing with a populous [sic] that turns desperate
after a natural disaster. Security and crowd control are chief concerns when
providing humanitarian assistance. Colombian Marines also learned proper
takedown techniques and enjoyed practical application with both U.S. and
Colombian Marines.”

The true aim of SOUTHCOM’s presence, and
Washington’s propping up of the militaries of its regional allies, is not
concern over human trafficking, organized crime or providing disaster relief,
but rather to assert US military power and repress the working classes
throughout the region.

While not technically a component of SOUTHCOM’s
geographical jurisdiction, the so-called Merida Initiative, Washington’s
program of funneling billions to fuel the militarization of Mexico, is
nevertheless an important element of the drive for US hegemony in the
Americas—the repressive apparatus of the Mexican state is in a very real and
direct sense an appendage of Washington.

The recently proposed Law of Internal Security,
still at this date making its way through Mexico’s Senate and Chamber of
Deputies, continues in this vein, granting to the military broader powers to
intervene oppressively on the pretext of protecting against anything that may
“endanger stability, security or the public peace.” This effectively makes
fixed what was supposed to have been a temporary measure during the initial
intensification of violence stemming from the drug trade during the Calderon
administration.

Were such a measure to be adopted, which could
be as early as January, it would mean the direct assumption of police duties by
the military, whose first target would be any organized opposition of the
working class to the reactionary social policies of the government.

The authoritarian and fascistic drift of
American politics is paralleled by similar developments in Mexico. These are
not merely the products of decisions made by specific politicians, but are
rooted in the ongoing world crisis of capitalism.

Santa Ana declares itself a sanctuary city in defiance

of Trump

Since Donald Trump was elected president in November, cities with large Latino populations have debated how to respond.

Many activists have urged these communities to do everything they can to protect people in this country illegally, even though such efforts might jeopardize some federal funding from a Washington in which Republicans will control not only the White House but also Congress.

Santa Ana — the seat of Orange County and home to one of the nation's largest Latino populations — decided this week to strike a defiant tone.

City Council members voted to declare Orange County’s second-most populous city a sanctuary city — a largely symbolic gesture to protect immigrants who are in the country illegally.

Tuesday’s vote is historic in that it makes Santa Ana the first city in Orange County to grant itself the designation. It joins dozens of other cities across the country that have declared themselves sanctuaries.

For most, like Santa Ana, the move is largely a message of political support for immigrants in the country illegally. But some cities have specific policies tied to them, notably San Francisco, which has come under criticism from Trump.

“The day after Donald Trump got elected, our kids were falling apart emotionally. They thought their parents would be deported,” said Sal Tinajero, a City Council member and teacher at Fullerton Union High School.

“The reason you’re seeing this push now is that us leaders ... want to tell them they are going to be protected. If they are going to come for them, they have to come through us first.”

Although city officials said they were sending a strong message to the community and to Trump, the move essentially maintains the status quo. The resolution is nonbinding and doesn’t add policies to provide additional protections to people who are in the country without legal status.

Council members, however, expressed support for making the resolution into an ordinance after dozens of community organizers urged them to do so during Tuesday’s meeting. The ordinance may come up for a vote at the council’s next meeting.

In addition, the council also voted to modify the resolution to establish an oversight committee or task force to oversee its implementation.

Immigrant rights activists urged the council to prohibit the city from sharing information about people without legal status with federal officials.

“I want to ensure that these protections are meaningful and not just symbolic,” said Carlos Perea, a Santa Ana resident and member of a grass-roots immigrant rights group called RAIZ.

Councilwoman Angelica Amezcua agreed.

“I think it’s time to take action,” she said. “This is just symbolic gesture. We need to move forward with an ordinance as well.”

Mayor Pro Tem Vicente Sarmiento listens as Denise Hinojosa speaks about the city becoming a sanctuary city for immigrants who fear deportation under a Trump presidency. (Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times)

But Robin Hvidston, president of We the People Rising, a Claremont organization with members in Orange County who lobby against illegal immigration, criticized Santa Ana’s decision.

“It is very sad that the city is not focusing upon the suffering American citizens — such as the homeless families and unemployed American citizens in Santa Ana — instead of promoting the breaking of federal immigration laws,” Hvidston said in a statement.

Mayor Miguel Pulido and Councilwoman Michele Martinez were absent from the meeting.

Also Tuesday, the council voted to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials that the city plans to reduce the number of beds available in its jail to house immigration detainees from about 200 to a maximum of 128.

The move is part of a plan to phase out an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement after council members voted in May to terminate the contract as soon as possible.

Although immigrant rights activists applauded the council’s decisions, they said city officials didn’t go far enough and urged them to create a specific timeline when they will terminate the agreement with ICE.

“We believe a sanctuary city with an immigration detention facility is contradictory…. The city will only truly be a sanctuary city when it ends its contract with ICE,” said Christina M. Fialho, a Costa Mesa attorney and executive director of Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement, a national group that coordinates jailhouse visits with immigrants in detention.

Scaling back the city’s contract with ICE also means shutting down one housing module and a $663,743 loss in annual revenue.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice said the agency was aware of the vote. She said that Santa Ana Jail is the smallest contract detention facility utilized by ICE in the Los Angeles area and that ICE is prepared to adjust to the change.

Kice said the agency would try to continue to collaborate with law enforcement agencies, such as Santa Ana Police Department.

Trump made illegal immigration a central issue of his presidential campaign, vowing to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, deport people who are in the country illegally and unwind immigration relief created under President Obama.

During the campaign, Trump said he also would withhold federal funds to punish so-called sanctuary cities, including Los Angeles and Chicago, for their lenient policies toward illegal immigration.

But the terms of a sanctuary city are loosely defined and vary depending on jurisdictions. Some communities — such as Santa Ana — make resolutions that are mostly symbolic while others vote in ordinances that cut ties with federal immigration officials.

Community organizers had hoped for an ordinance — not a resolution — that were more in line with larger cities, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. For instance, San Francisco adopted far-reaching policies, such as taking steps to cut ties with federal immigration officials and refusing to fully cooperate with them.

San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, and city officials strengthened the stance in 2013 with its “Due Process for All” ordinance. The law declared local authorities could not hold immigrants for immigration officials if the immigrants had no violent felonies on their records and did not currently face charges.

That city entered the national debate over immigration this summer, when Kathryn Steinle was fatally shot by Mexican national Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez in the Embarcadero neighborhood.

Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times before he shot Steinle. Trump described the murder as "a senseless and totally preventable violent act committed by an illegal immigrant."

Councilman Tinajero said Santa Ana has already adopted policies that help protect people who are in the country without legal status. He said he understands that the resolution may make Santa Ana a target for Trump, but says the city is in a strong enough financially to confront what may come.

MILLIONS of JOBS and BILLIONS in WELFARE and they commit most of the MURDERS

SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES: AMERICA FALLS TO LA RAZA SUPREMACY!

“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”